Invited perspectives: "Natural hazard management, professional development and gender equity: let's get down to business" - Natural Hazards and ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard management, professional
development and gender equity: let’s get down to business”
Valeria Cigala1, , Giulia Roder2, , and Heidi Kreibich3
1 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, 80799, Germany
2 Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Udine, Udine, 33100, Italy
3 German Research Centre for Geosciences (GFZ), Section Hydrology, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Correspondence: Valeria Cigala (valeria.cigala@min.uni-muenchen.de) and Giulia Roder (giulia.roder@uniud.it)
Received: 2 September 2021 – Discussion started: 6 September 2021
Revised: 9 December 2021 – Accepted: 13 December 2021 – Published: 19 January 2022
1 Take stock of the situation tions, behaviours, and intentions before, during, and after
natural hazards. Based on our literature search, we recog-
nise that for most disaster-related papers, gender was merely
Women constitute a minority in the geoscience professional
used as a dichotomous variable (usually together with a set
environment (around 30 %; e.g. UNESCO, 2015; Gonzales,
of other socio-demographic variables) to test assessments
2019; Handley et al., 2020), and as a consequence, they
and model results, which are the core of the papers. When
are underrepresented in disaster risk reduction (DRR) plan-
gender results in a significant variable, it is rarely contex-
ning. After examining the Sendai framework documents and
tualised with the vulnerability of women and men in the
data outputs, Zaidi and Fordham (2021) pointed out that
socio-cultural and political environment of the study site (ex-
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–
ceptions are Finucane et al., 2000; Cvetković et al., 2018;
2030 (SFDRR) has failed to promote women and girls’ in-
Mondino et al., 2021). Instead, stereotypical biological sex
clusion in disaster policy effectively. In addition, it repre-
motivations are more often considered (e.g. women are more
sents a missed opportunity to tackle gender-based issues in
vulnerable due to housekeeping and child-bearing respon-
DRR (even beyond the female–male dichotomy). Neverthe-
sibilities; Paradise, 2005; De Silva and Jayathilaka, 2014).
less, practical actions have been promoted and applied in sev-
Gender as a social structure has a complex interaction at both
eral contexts with promising results, but often they only re-
the individual and communal levels (Risman, 2018), able to
main lessons learned in localised environments (Zaidi and
influence the capacity of communities to withstand the neg-
Fordham, 2021). Instead, the global gender gap index, which
ative occurrence of natural hazards actively. In our opinion,
includes political empowerment, economic participation and
if we fail to understand that, we fail in risk reduction strate-
opportunity, educational attainment, health, and survival, re-
gies and effective planning. To this point, we recognise that
veals that the average distance completed to parity is only
gender is poorly investigated in DRR papers. It is much more
68 % in 2019. Although the gap closing rate has constantly
considered in social science articles, oriented to history, so-
improved, it will take about 135.6 years to close it completely
cieties, and social behaviours in general. Moreover, gender
(WEF, 2021). These numbers do not yet account for 2020–
diversity is scarce in the professional sphere of natural haz-
2021 data, where the global pandemic has more strongly
ards, with consequences for managing vulnerabilities and ca-
impacted women, their career, their opportunities, and their
reer opportunities in academic research.
health in comparison with men (e.g. Alon et al., 2020; Chan-
Thus, despite the global gender gap index decreasing over
dler et al., 2021; Yildirim and Eslen-Ziya, 2021).
the years, challenges to gender equity (e.g. reaching equal
Gender recognition and representation do not affect the
political power, economic participation, educational attain-
sole career sphere or the policy and DRR agenda. They even
ment) are still strongly perceived. Therefore, practical ac-
impact our vision about gender and gender equity in the ac-
Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.86 V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity”
tions, solutions, and strategies to close the gender gap must Table 1. Summary of the respondents’ demographics expressed in
continue to be tested and researched, the actions’ efficacy as- percentage.
sessed, and their effects adequately monitored. In this “in-
vited perspective”, we put individuals identifying themselves Characteristic Respondents
with genders that are a minority in the field of natural haz- (%)
ards, i.e. female and non-binary genders, at the centre of the Identified gender
discussion. We aim to concretely contribute to understanding
the standpoint of these minorities who are often underrep- Female 99.2
Non-binary 0.8
resented, unheard, and poorly considered professionally in
DRR policy and practice. Thus, this perspective qualitatively Natural hazard field
explores a collection of 121 opinions of individuals identi-
Hydro-meteo 39.3
fying themselves as female and one opinion of an individual All or multiple 26.2
identifying themselves as non-binary working in the broad Landslides 13.9
field of natural hazards (in academia and in the industry as Earthquakes 9.0
practitioners or policymakers). The respondents are dispro- Volcanic 6.6
portionate towards the female gender; as a result, most of the Sea and ocean 6.6
issues and solutions proposed and discussed in the present Wildfire 4.1
paper revolve around the female gender. Profession
The questionnaire was short and explorative, examining
opinions on the challenges (Q1) related to natural hazards Scientist 86.9
in general and those concerning (Q2) natural hazards and Consultant 5.7
Practitioner 4.9
gender equity, plus (Q3) opinions on the most urgent solu-
Policymaker 1.6
tions to withstand gender inequities. The last question (Q4)
Scientific communicator 1.6
asked for the respondent’s gender-related challenges experi- Student 1.6
enced during their career (or studies). Questions have been
purposely developed following a general to local scale, nar- Education
rowing down their general perspectives in natural hazards re- PhD or other postgraduate specialisation 68.9
search and concluding with one’s own experience. We have Master’s degree 27.0
chosen open questions to let the professionals personally Bachelor’s degree 4.1
provide the most critical priority for action, related chal-
Geographical area of residency
lenges, and solutions. We have categorised all the answers
through qualitative text analysis. Each response to the four Europe 68.0
questions has been analysed independently by the three au- North America 11.5
thors. A final discussion allowed us to assign all responses Asia 5.7
to definitive categories to the key concepts expressed. All South America 4.9
Middle East 1.6
categories are shown in Fig. 1. The survey included socio-
Australia and Oceania 0.8
demographic variables (profession, educational level, and Did not answer 7.4
country of residence) characterising the respondents. The
data collection used a random approach, where only inter-
ested participants offered their time participating in the sur-
vey; we found a heterogeneous (and disproportionate) repre- binary people are also underrepresented, we decided to in-
sentation of those demographic categories. The survey was clude their answer in the analysis. Table 1 summarises the
conducted in April 2021 online on EUSurvey, a service cre- demographics of the respondents. Individuals identifying as
ated and managed by the European Commission. The survey male were excluded from the survey via a first barrier ques-
was fully anonymised, and no user-related data were saved. tion about the gender. The sample is dominated by female
No respondent’s sensitive information (e.g. name, surname, European scientists working on hydro-meteorological haz-
or age) was requested. The survey, i.e. link to the question- ards or multi-hazards.
naire with a short explanatory and motivational text, was ad-
vertised via email to the EGU NHESS author list and to a list
of female professionals whom the authors had collected in 2 The voices collected
their networks. Moreover, the survey was advertised on so-
cial media, particularly on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook, The responses to each of the four questions have been cate-
through the personal accounts of the first two authors. gorised into two groups: related to (i) natural hazards (dark
Among 122 people who filled out the questionnaire, grey in Fig. 1) and (ii) professional development (light grey
121 identified as female and one as non-binary. Since non- in Fig. 1). This division is because respondents oriented their
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity” 87
answers based on personal judgement, progressed profes- This mismatch can generate “confusion among practitioners
sional experience, and cognitive and emotional background. and managing authorities”, with difficulties harmonising the
In the following chapters, direct quotes of responses received results and consequent miscommunication risks. Uncertainty
are identified with ID and a sequential number (from 1 to 122 is considered a prominent issue in this regard, especially con-
for each question). The categories for each question and the cerning the unpredictability of climate change as widely ac-
related percentage of responses are also included in the Sup- knowledged among scientists. These are challenging com-
plement in the form of a table. munication efforts, especially when communities lack trust
in authorities’ decisions or due to competitive objectives and
2.1 Natural hazards’ biggest challenges interests.
Enhancing communication is one of the top priorities for
Natural hazards and disaster reconnaissance have been 17 interviewees (13.9 %), highlighting that “our biggest chal-
widely investigated among professional, government, and lenge as scientists is to convince the general public and politi-
academic experts. Somewhat lesser is the state of the arts cians about our scientific findings and to be able to com-
regarding the natural hazards community’s grand challenges municate them properly, in a language that they can under-
to direct new approaches for investigation. For this reason, stand” (ID30). Problems with comprehension may also de-
we asked our respondents to express the most critical chal- rive from a “lack of consensus concerning basic definitions
lenge in natural hazards research (Q1) with no limiting con- (hazard, risk, vulnerability, resilience), leading to misunder-
text. The importance of starting from global to local (from standings or misuse of these terms” (ID52) that can affect
natural hazards in general to gender equity and personal ex- authorities who can neglect the information received. A to-
perience) aimed at helping the interviewee to get into the tal of 27 % of interviewees also pointed to a lack of proper
topic and value their professional knowledge and expertise political management and insufficient resources and funding.
about natural hazards. In addition, despite the question be- In this regard, even more prominent is the need for a
ing explorative, we wanted to check whether women would
have connected the biggest challenges of natural hazards to stronger dialogue between scientists and govern-
broad concepts of vulnerability, fragile communities, vulner- ments, [for the] identification of strategies and
able groups, and similar. This is because it has always been solutions that might be effectively implemented
one of the greatest stereotypes associated with women (i.e. in the real world, thus promoting a research that
the most dedicated to caring activities and fragile). Instead, might really contribute to the solution of real-
the most perceived challenge (44.3 %) is related to climate life problems and not remain in the academic dis-
change and extreme events, focusing on the difficulties of courses (ID60).
long-term forecasting and predictive models due to the inter- Integrating multidisciplinary perspectives into this dia-
change of anthropogenic impacts on the environment. logue would significantly enhance the approach (method-
Similarly, Wartman et al. (2020) found that computational ological and communicational) towards such a complex field
simulation and forecasting are essential tools for decision of research, which 27.9 % of respondents believed. Respon-
making and planning, but they still represent a challenge dents also indicated a lack of multidisciplinarity, with a con-
to the professional community. This result evidences that current lack of transversal competencies and integrated so-
women professionals in the natural hazard community do lutions for multidimensional problems. Integrating multidis-
not differ from their counterparts. None of their possible ciplinary perspectives into this field would significantly en-
more prominent caring attitudes and sensitivities can affect hance the approach towards such complex phenomena. Mul-
their perceptions of their work priorities and directions. To tidisciplinary in natural hazards means the following:
continue, respondents believed that one of the most evident
constraints is the high complexity and data requirements for build and use land planning integrated multi-risks
model development to provide a reliable forecast concerning models which are able to contain both multi-
the short observation periods, which increases uncertainty. hazard analyses (including hazards evolutions due
As evidenced by the 10 % of the sample, problems with data to climate change) and complex exposure elements
are multifaceted, and data quality, accessibility, and trans- (including population migration, natech compo-
parency are an utmost priority. This is especially true when nents) (ID33)
research solutions are [. . . ] translated into opera- that “deal with the underlying conditions that influ-
tional procedures [. . . ] without considering the ac- ence (social and physical) vulnerability to natural hazards,
tual legal framework or the availability of data, re- namely, poverty and inequality” (ID37). This may be well
ferring to a resolution [being too small or too large] explained by Diekman et al. (2015), who analysed women’s
that in practice is not used by the managing author- motivation for undertaking a STEM career (for study or
ities (ID84). work). Collaborative goals, such as translating theory into
practice to help communities advance and enhance develop-
ment, traditionally appear to lack in the STEM fields. Inter-
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022 Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 202288 V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity”
Figure 1. Summary of the categories of challenges and solutions in natural hazards (NH) related to gender equity and personal experiences.
In dark grey are natural-hazard-related responses while in light grey are responses related to professional and career development.
and transdisciplinary research may therefore be a women’s cal perspectives on environmental justice, and land-based ed-
professional requirement to be able to consider the multi- ucation.
faceted nature of the problem. However, although it is widely The call for a more inclusive and ethical science that is
recognised, it is still very much concentrated within specific useful, usable, and used (Aitsi-Anselmi et al., 2018) is promi-
disciplinary areas (Latour, 2004). Datta (2018) also recog- nent among the respondents and ascribable to the progression
nised the need to overcome dynamic notions of static disci- of vulnerability investigated and underlined in the last decade
plinary practice welcoming interdisciplinary research train- of research in natural hazards and disaster management. Vul-
ing to solve and understand the practical challenges from nerability but also the progression of vulnerability for multi-
various perspectives. In this regard, we need to “step out- ple interactive factors is challenging for 16.4 % of respon-
side western norms” (ID27) and the influence that cultural dents. A response recognised such “underlying conditions
and social relations and power may have on our approach to that influence the social and physical vulnerability of natu-
research: ral hazards, [are] poverty and inequality” (ID37). Women in
disaster risk management are mostly “invisible and are not
I think that in natural hazards and Earth sciences, in heard” (ID95), but also “women in science and leading po-
general, we are suffering from a crisis of (lack of) sitions are still a minority, and therefore their performance
diversity. I think there are many reasons for this. and opinions are also sometimes underestimated” (ID41)
Some are historical, and we can hope that they be- (see Sect. 2.2 and 2.3). Two respondents believe that the in-
gin to change as the conversation around diversity creased impacts of global warming and the concurrent in-
becomes more open [than it is now], but some are crease in weather extremes can have an impact on the most
cultural. Academia does not always foster an envi- vulnerable individuals globally, “seeing more [environmen-
ronment where these open discussions can be had, tal] migration” (ID79) and “[. . . ] lead[ing] to [a] reorgani-
and where people are held accountable for their ac- sation of populations” (ID80). However, despite the finan-
tions (ID98). cial investments towards natural hazard mitigation infrastruc-
tures, there is much consensus that they are still not evenly
Thus, a strong connection with collective and policy distributed, “even within wealthy nations” (ID79). Adapta-
responsibility exists. Datta (2018) referred to indigenous tion, resilience, and sustainable solutions are challenging for
knowledge. However, we believe we can expand the dis- the 18 % of respondents who reported significant obstacles
course to collaborative research knowledge that is cultur- in creating a culture of risk (by increasing awareness) be-
ally appropriate, respectful, honouring, and careful of the lo- cause some natural hazards cannot be prevented, as they are
cal community, promoting anti-racist, gender-inclusive the- natural geomorphic processes. It is “the human behaviour in
ory and practice, cross-cultural research methodology, criti-
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity” 89
responding to a natural disaster [that] can make the differ- occurrences (Cvetković et al., 2018; Thurston et al., 2021).
ence” (ID86). A respondent stated that it is a challenge to In this context, a respondent added,
“address inequities for people in [the] location of hazards, ac-
the most obvious challenge is the need to find ways
cess to mitigation/adaptation/preparation/recovery resources,
to give women a voice in some countries where,
access to hazard warnings, research/observing near under-
again, the society is male-dominated. Women will
served communities” (ID103); furthermore, “rather than the
often be the people in the household responsi-
technological progress the biggest challenge is reducing the
ble for preparedness and planning activities re-
losses where resources are not available” (ID93). The last
lated to natural hazards. Yet, their opinion may
13.1 % argue instead about the poor forecast of hazards, poor
not be sought when decision and policymakers
understanding of the complexity of the occurrence of phe-
put together plans for improving household re-
nomena and their effects, and lack of early warning systems.
silience (ID109).
2.2 Natural hazards and gender equity: challenges and Another respondent, in fact, imperatively stated, “edu-
solutions cat[e] women to react and survive. The experience of the In-
dian Ocean tsunami 2004 is that women died more than men
Natural hazards affect individuals without fixed distinctions because they waited at home for their husbands to leave their
of their gender, and it is important to not over-generalise homes” (ID91). In practical terms, 18.9 % of the respondents
a popular trend that sees women as vulnerable per de- asked for more awareness and support for educational and
fault. However, case-specific disaster losses demonstrate how empowerment activities for women.
women and girls are more likely to be disproportionately af-
Women have unfortunately globally [fewer] oppor-
fected by disasters during and in the aftermath of disasters,
tunities for education and might therefore already
a situation exacerbated by the increase in climate-change-
be running behind in their understanding of natural
induced hazardous events (Neumayer and Plümper, 2007;
hazards and how to prepare themselves and their
Fatouros and Capetola, 2021). The impact includes unprece-
communities. More effort should be done to reach
dented challenges regarding health and well-being, for exam-
female communities and educate them (ID104)
ple, high rates of mortality and morbidity, prolonged psycho-
logical distress, and exposure to high-risk domestic environ- expressed a respondent sharing the concerns of many oth-
ments (Fatouros and Capetola, 2021; Thurston et al., 2021)1 , ers, who additionally argue for “enhanc[ing] the connection
also hampering their opportunity to gainful employment af- of women in the field of natural hazards and make their voice
ter the occurrence of a disaster. Socio-economic conditions heard” (ID19).
and cultural beliefs, social norms, and traditional practices The concept of unheard voices is well experienced person-
contribute to the complex progression of the vulnerability of ally by most respondents and is found in Sect. 2.3. Aware-
women in the wake of natural hazards and disasters, recog- ness should not be considered just as a means but also as
nised by 12.3 % of respondents. Cultural, systemic inequal- a place. We found an interesting comment of a respondent
ities emerge, especially in “lesser-developed countries, but asking for “the creation of safe spaces to consider fully the
almost everywhere [where] women are paid less and thus impacts on women in the event of hazard events, and their
have less to respond to disasters” (ID45). In addition, it is experiences and frustrations as researchers” (ID27). This ap-
more difficult for a female-headed household to acquire fi- proach recognised the need for a horizontal space of dia-
nancial assistance and loans that are essential in the post- logue in DRR, where no top-down or bottom-up approaches
disaster rebuilding and re-establishing processes (Alagan and are considered. Women’s accumulated skills, experiences,
Aladuwaka, 2011; Fatouros and Capetola, 2021). and capabilities in times of catastrophes are often not ade-
Systemic inequalities are also perceived at the family level, quately identified, recognised, and promoted. Women’s par-
because as a respondent expressed, “women are less encour- ticipation in DRR decision-making processes at all levels
aged to take information on their own, in most cases, they throughout the world is meagre. In this respect, 18 % of re-
listen to their partner and agree with their decisions” (ID82), spondents perceive a lack of inclusivity (of minorities in gen-
which is not new in literature (Cvetković et al., 2018). Pa- eral, thus extending the vulnerable pool) and potential dif-
triarchal families can experience communication problems ferences related to gender in risk assessment (both research
within the domestic sphere and in the wake of natural hazard and practice). Inclusivity has been advocated to be “not just
to reach a quota and not only if they first have to be more
1 Disclaimer: the topic of well-being, gender, and natural haz- like the majority (e.g. men-like women, rich coloured peo-
ards related to psychological and physical burdens (e.g. violence or ple)” (ID36). Respondents share the concern that women and
suicide in the aftermath of a disastrous event) has not been included other gender minorities do not have a seat at the table when
in the current paper because of the lacking competencies to develop it comes to disaster risk management and resilience. Hence,
such complex clinical topic. In addition, none of the respondents their needs and interests are excluded from disaster man-
considered this topic in their answers. agement programmes (Dominey-Howes et al., 2014; Gail-
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022 Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 202290 V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity”
lard et al., 2017; Gorman-Murray et al., 2018), which fail it would be great if there could be some overar-
to recognise their diverse economic, political, legal, occupa- ching guiding principles that all institutions could
tional, familial, ideological, and cultural backgrounds (Zaidi adhere to, but academia is quite fragmented, so I
and Fordham, 2021), creating many issues during response think it really comes down to individual institu-
and recovery stages (Hemachandra et al., 2018; Thurston et tions fostering open conversations and using these
al., 2021). However, women are considered agents of change to drive change (ID86).
with unique skills, qualities, and expertise benefitting qual-
ity governance (Gurmai, 2013) through accuracy and trans- Education is still considered at the base of the change, able
parency in the decision-making process (Araujo and Tejedo- “to build bridges [and] not barriers between each other and
Romero, 2016). Gender inclusion in DRR is recognising and to see the richness in diversity and inclusivity” (ID112).
welcoming differences rather than accepting homogeneous Finally, the need to include gender-specific response and
thinking. Respondents’ testimonies make us realise that the recovery measures is an utmost priority for 4.1 % of respon-
personal experiences in DRR research and management are dents, where 0.8 % argue for a gendered and inclusive lan-
well integrated into individuals’ cognitive and experiential guage and communication. So, combining multiple concepts
backgrounds. A total of 31 % of respondents argue for gen- brought up by the interviewees, we need women, and we
der mainstreaming with leadership and inclusion in disaster need to use appropriate language when including them in the
management policies and practices. They recognise female DRR policy and practice. However, which women should be
underrepresentation in leadership positions and male domi- involved? This is the interesting question that Enarson and
nance in decision-making bodies and communities related to Chakrabarti (2009) expressed in one of the latest books. They
the disaster cycle (18.9 %). A respondent is convinced that recognised the need to consult and involve local women’s or-
“better equity between genders in governing bodies would ganisations and networks, including development and grass-
modify the decision trees of the authorities, particularly in roots organisations active in high-risk areas.
terms of mitigation and long-term view pattern[s]” (ID33). We can conclude shortly that there is no “silver bullet”
A total of 6.6 % of respondents to question Q2 believe that to solve gender equity in natural hazards. However, there
gender is not a (big) problem in natural hazards. Most of their is a need to know how useful and effective concrete exam-
responses refer to positive personal experience in their pro- ples, specific suggestions, action guides, and indicators are
fessional career and the opinion that “science is likely one of to mainstream gender into DRR.
the field[s] that suffers least of gender un-equality. At least
2.3 Professional development and gender equity
in the western countries.” (ID86). Interestingly, none of these
eight respondents considered gender an important variable in The questions related to natural hazards and gender eq-
the disaster assessment or its vulnerability construction. We uity (Q2 and Q3) were perceived to be related to natural haz-
discuss positive changes experienced by the respondents in ards per se (see Sect. 2.2) and for some others to professional
terms of gender equity in the professional sphere more in development (Fig. 1, light grey boxes). Only Q4 specifically
Sect. 2.3. addressed gender-based issues in the work environment; in
All the above demonstrates a literature gap in identifying particular, we asked for personal experiences. Since personal
the ways to improve the role of women in disaster risk gover- experiences and general challenges often coincide, we have
nance derived by a gender data gap that still exists. A total of used both to address the abundant issues still residing within
7 % of the respondents found it a priority to collect more dis- the community and the actions to be implemented for a more
aggregated data to raise the visibility of the problem when inclusive work environment. The challenges perceived in nat-
assessing risks and adaptation options of natural hazards, ural hazards and gender equity (Q2) are for 37.7 % of re-
recognising gender differences without mainstreaming the sponses related to the lack of role models and female repre-
stereotypes. That might give the idea of gender to be merely sentation in decision roles and leadership positions, showing
connected to a vulnerable condition (Roder et al., 2017) and the range of career possibilities and paths. In addition, 36.1 %
to be exclusively related to women, promoting stereotypical of respondents (Q2) evidenced unresolved challenges related
notions of women as “victims” or the “weaker sex” (Zaidi to an unfair reward structure, pay gap, life–work imbalance,
and Fordham, 2021). This is because, often, vulnerability as- stereotyping, and lack of recognition in a male-dominated
sessments do not emphasise the fact that individuals simulta- field. However, these are not just perceptions; they are also
neously belong to multiple and intersectional social groups – matched by 73.8 % of personal experiences (Q4), people who
gender being just one of these – from which they draw their have confronted career advancement and unfair treatment ob-
identities and which shape their risk profile in the context of stacles.
disasters (Zaidi and Fordham, 2021). Real progress towards In detail, 27.9 % experienced being attributed a lower
mainstreaming gender into DRR needs a cultural change be- salary compared to male colleagues and being discriminated
yond gender stereotypes (13 % of responses). Possibly, against in obtaining leadership positions:
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity” 91
More visibility is given to male colleagues all the imposing on my peers, and thinking twice about taking valu-
time. Even more power and resources are given able measurements in areas where my safety might be at
to them. In my place of work (State organisation), risk” (ID101).
power positions belong 100 % to men (ID17). A positive trend has been observed concerning structural
changes in recent times. For example, one respondent who
Moreover, 14.8 % of respondents also experienced or wit- experienced discrimination in the past recognised that “fe-
nessed life–work imbalance, particularly worsened due to male colleagues entering the field now, with solid com-
unequal expectations of women and men’s family responsi- petencies and a lot of “guts”, have much more chances
bilities. A respondent reported that “it has always been very now to move up to decision positions” (ID23). In addition,
difficult to combine motherhood with the challenges of mak- 23 % of respondents explicitly said they did not experience
ing a career” (ID37), and another echoed that “it has been any gender-related career challenges, reporting their positive
very hard to find role models in my field when I took the de- experience in a supportive environment and gender-mixed
cision of having a family. I had no reference for a successful teams (at both the educational and the professional levels).
woman in my field with children” (ID69). Although for a couple of respondents the personal experience
Unfair treatment has also been experienced widely by our was positive, they reported being aware of gender-related
respondents. A respondent reported “My opinions have been challenges encountered by other female colleagues.
quite often undervalued by other colleagues. Even when I We can conclude that the struggle for women to find inclu-
was the PI of a project, some people preferred to speak to sive work environments was and still is not resolved, despite
male colleagues” (ID110). Compared to male colleagues, recognising positive efforts in the right direction and some
and a lack of credibility was reported by 27.9 %, a lack of virtuous examples. Solutions concerned with promoting gen-
respect regardless of role was reported by 23.8 %. Sexuali- der equity in the work environment are envisioned by 54.1 %
sation and harassment were reported by 13.9 %. One of the of the responses to Q3. The proposed solutions will not read
interviewees, unfortunately, shared one of the most negative unfamiliar to those accustomed to the debate in the broader
experiences: gender-related STEM career challenges: “Diversity begins at
Anything deemed “feminine” about me was used the top. Work to understand why retention is challenging and
against me as a weakness. Constant inappropriate change reward structures. Put women in leadership positions.
talk [was] designed to see if it would get a reaction Refuse to hold all-male panels, all-male sessions, all-male
out of me by my co[-]workers. In the field, free anything” (ID42), said one respondent, well summarising the
time was spent at the bar or even hostess lounges, general feeling of the interviewees.
and I was incredibly uncomfortable. Then I was A total of 43.9 % of responses suggested enhancing selec-
put in a closed-door meeting with just my supervi- tion transparency via providing equal support and access to
sor and asked how working there as a woman was. resources and information, recognising women’s work, and
I felt very unsafe and therefore unable to be truth- changing the reward structure, ensuring an experience-based
ful (ID79). salary to close the gender gap. Bell and co-authors advocated
for such changes and actions almost 20 years ago (Bell et
Discrimination can be pervasive to the point of feeling al., 2003). It is noteworthy and disappointing how slow the
“pushed to be more “masculine” in the workplace to fit process towards equity is if we are still discussing the benefit
in” (ID79). To our dismay, the biases and stereotypes re- these changes would accomplish today. Indeed, many institu-
ported and the harassment experienced are not new to women tions have taken steps forward in these regards. However, the
working in male-dominated disciplines or literature (Ken- mission is far from being complete, and possibly one reason
ney et al., 2012), news outlets, and documentaries (Pottle is that the efficacy of actions undertaken is often not mea-
et al., 2020). Despite the wide recognition of the problem, sured or not publicly shared (Timmers et al., 2010; McKin-
progress is still slow. Cultural, systemic inequities are part of non, 2020). Promoting women’s work reflected 31.8 % of re-
this problem and are linked not only to gender stereotypes sponses calling for hiring more women, particularly in high-
but also to age, ethnicity, religion, and nationality (9.8 % of profile and relevant positions, as a solution. To achieve that,
respondents). quotas are one of the actions commonly proposed. Quotas
Finally, 8.2 % of respondents reported issues related to have long since been introduced in many institutes and fund-
fieldwork: they experienced exclusion and lack of consider- ing organisations and resulted in an effective reduction of the
ation of their specific needs precluding them from perform- gender gap in leadership roles in certain areas (Handley et al.,
ing tasks. In some cases, the problem is again very much 2020; Pellegrino et al., 2020). However, as some respondents
related to stereotypes concerning capability; one respondent also noted, quota rules may appear only on paper at times.
reported, “Many times in the field I was asked, “are you They may also be seen as controversial or counterproduc-
sure you can do this (going uphill, going down, dirt my- tive, reinforcing old stereotypes (Handley et al., 2020; Pelle-
self)?” (ID44). One respondent also felt uneasy “about cer- grino et al., 2020). We believe that quotas can be a double-
tain accommodations (e.g. bathroom) that I feel I might be edged sword able to raise negative opinions among women in
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022 Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 202292 V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity”
the workplace, undermining their credibility. However, quo- acceptance of part-time careers, and a better redistribution
tas can be a valuable instrument to promote and normalise of roles and responsibilities, which are seen as significant
more gender-balanced environments until more transparency help by 13.6 % of responses. In addition to promoting more
in selection procedures is enacted. women in our work environments and providing adequate
One respondent, for example, pointed out support, institutions must become safe places where people
in “positions of power and administration take harassment
as a woman, I am always extremely disappointed
claims seriously and stand by a zero-tolerance policy and
when positions are open only for my gender. First,
made women feel comfortable and believed when reporting
because it means that male[s] in this specific insti-
these issues” (ID80), said a respondent, reflecting 15.2 % of
tution had the power to only employ other males.
responses.
Second, because women employed at such posi-
We can conclude that one of the main steps forward with
tions can always be taught that they only got it be-
the potential to have a profound impact is a broad cultural
cause of their gender, not their capacities (ID12).
change that will break down stereotypes and allow real di-
A global survey targeting Earth and space scientists by versity. A total of 27.8 % of responses explicitly hope for
Popp et al. (2019) clearly showed the divided opinion on this change in the work environment, but it is possible to in-
quotas. They noted how quotas’ favour tends to be gen- clude all actions proposed in this much broader resolution.
dered, with 44.9 % of women and 27.9 % of men sharing Cultural changes are slow to achieve. Keeping up a construc-
a favourable opinion, and related to career stage. Among tive debate and attention around the topic helps as much as
women favouring quotas, 56.1 % are postdocs, while among the proposed change in the reward structure, the promotion
men 34 % hold a professor position. They concluded this re- of women’s work, hiring more competent women for api-
sult showed a clear sign of a disadvantage for early- to mid- cal positions, providing motherhood-specific support, and re-
career women and a fear of being negatively affected by quo- defining roles and responsibilities. We do not exclude the im-
tas for mid-career men geoscientists (Popp et al., 2019). Han- mense necessity for normalisation of co-parenting and gen-
dley et al. (2020) have analysed the gender balance in univer- derless or gender equivalent parental initiatives. We believe
sities in Australasia and noted that even if quota regulations that there have been very prominent actions undertaken in
were in place, few to no women would apply to vacancies for this direction in some countries. However, they are political
various reasons. Therefore, to counteract the issue, they pro- regulations where we, singularly, have little to no control. In-
posed creating a database of female professionals working stead, institutions (or companies) can lead the change and be-
in geosciences divided by area of research. Such a database come the first promoters of equal support with well-thought-
can be used to find new collaborators, advertise vacancies, out plans and effective assessment.
invite applications from relevant candidates (possibly lead- One more way to foster profound changes is to promote
ing to a larger number of female applicants), inquire about inclusive language at all levels, particularly from people in
consultancy, ask for an interview, and pool for surveys. We leadership positions, regardless of their gender. Language
find this solution interesting and responsive to the needs of profoundly shapes our mind and our way of interpreting the
giving equal career opportunities while maintaining a trans- world we live in: the words we use can discriminate as much
parent process and recognising female professionals. Such a as they can empower (McKay et al., 2015; Taheri, 2020).
database could also be used to promote female-specific men- Where not yet in place, specific training on inclusive lan-
torship and role models, including increasing the visibility guage and unconscious bias should be organised at institu-
of women’s work and thus help engage more female stu- tions and organisations and possibly be made mandatory with
dents and potentially retain them in the field, as noted by a top-down priority.
27.8 % of responses. On mentoring and role models, Han- The solutions envisioned by the pool of respondents to
dley et al. (2020) highlighted an important point. Since not our survey are very similar to strategies already highlighted
many women occupy apical positions yet, horizontal mentor- in the literature, reported in Table 2. We can conclude that
ing among women peers or close in the career stage can also strategies, actions, and solutions are well defined and, in
be a good option. For several years, several associations have some instances, already enacted. However, monitoring the
made their primary goal to provide support and mentoring efficacy of these actions is far more complex but of great rel-
to women in geosciences. These include the Earth Science evance to understanding which of them are worth pursuing
Women’s Network (ESWN; Adams et al., 2016) established and which instead do not provide significant improvement
in 2016 by 500 women scientists and Geolatinas founded towards closing gender-based issues. Timmers et al. (2010),
in 2002. A complete list of women-focused and women-led analysing aggregated data for employment in the year 2000–
geoscience and related networks are available in Handley et 2007 in 14 universities in the Netherlands, could observe
al. (2020). Moreover, female-specific funding and support that the larger the number of gender equality policy actions
schemes, including those specifically for supporting moth- adopted, the more significant the reduction of the glass ceil-
erhood, are solutions for 21.2 % of respondents. The latter ing. However, they criticised the lack of internal evaluation of
goes together with the promotion of life–work balance, the the adopted measures by the universities themselves. Univer-
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity” 93
Table 2. Summary of strategies and envisioned solutions towards gender equity in STEM and geoscience from recent literature and this study.
It can be observed how the proposed solutions align well among themselves, showing strong similarity. When a solution has been proposed
that does not find direct comparison, the related box is left blank. ∗ Handley et al. (2020) focus mainly on the Australasian situation. However,
these data are also fundamental for elsewhere in the world.
Vila-Concejo et al. Popp et al. (2019) Handley et al. (2020) This perspective
(2018)
Redefine success Transparent candidate Re-think excellence Provide equal support
selection criteria of recognition and and recognition;
institutions and reward criteria change the reward
funders for hiring structure, improve
processes and funding selection
opportunities transparency, and
close the pay gap
Advocate for more Better promotion and Raise the visibility of Hire more women,
women in prestigious representation of women through open- especially in leadership
roles female scientists by access databases positions; apply
selecting them for quota rule and
prestigious decision- control its actual
making roles in application
scientific
organisations and
institutions
Encourage more Greater promotion of Promote mentorship
women to enter the the value of mentoring and female role
discipline at a young and provision of models; engage more
age inclusive mentoring with female students
programmes
Create awareness of Mandatory gender Engage the whole Create a culture of
gender bias bias training to geoscience change beyond gender
combat unconscious community to create stereotypes
biases sustainable change
Get better support for Grant more rights, Promote a life–work
the return to work flexibility, and balance
support for parents to
share parental
responsibilities and to
transform academia
into a more family-
friendly workplace
Promote high- Provide female
achieving female specific funding and
support; motherhood
support
Speak up Eliminate and actively Provide a safe
address everyday environment where
sexism and women are really
harassment in heard, believed, and
geosciences: field trip supported
code of conducts
Gather more data on
why women leave
geosciences∗
Invite more men to
an open discussion
about gender equality
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022 Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 202294 V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity”
sities, research institutes, and organisations should promote ture of research in natural hazards and disaster mitigation and
researching and applying adequate methods for monitoring our professional domain needs to include all voices and find
their strategies and implementing them with high priority. allies in the privileged categories of the specific domain of
interest. We think that lessons learnt within the context of
discrimination against women can serve as a starting point to
3 Getting down to business expand the discourse to other gender minorities and that in-
tersectional research should be advocated for to gain an all-
From the response analysis and state-of-the-art literature, we inclusive approach and understanding of disaster stories that
have understood that gender-based challenges at the pro- foreground differences.
fessional level and within the disaster cycle are very close.
Moreover, because of their interrelation, the solutions pro-
posed may not be exclusive for a professional or a more tech- Data availability. Given the confidential nature of data gathered
nical sphere, but they can work simultaneously, with mutual from the interviews, they are available upon reasonable request to
benefit. Early education is key to fostering a cultural revo- the corresponding authors.
lution. If children attend classes related to social norms, di-
versity, and inclusion, they might become adults able to see
beyond individuals’ gender. If so, women and other gender Supplement. The supplement related to this article is available on-
line at: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022-supplement.
minorities would be much more considered for leadership
positions in DRR institutions or academia, thus promoting
a more comprehensive vision about vulnerabilities before,
Author contributions. All authors have contributed to the concep-
during, and after natural hazard occurrence. But the cultural
tualization and data curation. VC and GR have equally contributed
change must also be vertical in a top-down approach by or- to the analysis and preparation of the first draft. All authors have
ganising specific compulsory training for leaders and profes- contributed to the revision and editing of the manuscript.
sionals to explain biases and stereotypes and fight them to
promote a more effective and just natural hazard manage-
ment and, thus, more inclusive society. In addition, the scale Competing interests. At least one of the (co-)authors is a member
of the change should consider the horizontal space in which of the editorial board of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sci-
role models are found within peer networks to promote and ences.
support positive imitative behaviour.
For what concerns the guiding principles and institutions,
several examples highlighted in this perspective showed how Disclaimer. Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains
the political agenda (e.g. SFDRR) lacks any gender-related neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
practical guidance. The same is true for all other local admin- institutional affiliations.
istrations and institutions. Many gender-inclusive initiatives
are short-term and aim primarily to spark interest rather than
build skills. Most of the time, they are just a box “ticked” Special issue statement. This article is part of the special issue
“Perspectives on challenges and step changes for addressing natural
rather than an effective action. Therefore, we advocate for
hazards”. It is not associated with a conference.
compulsory study, implementation, and application of meth-
ods to measure and monitor the efficacy of actions and strate-
gies put in place at institutional, national, and international Acknowledgements. We would like to thank the Copernicus NHESS
levels over time. office team for their help in distributing the survey and especially
In addition, current gender-inclusive initiatives exclude the survey participants, who took the time to share their thoughts
men despite literature demonstrating a disjunction between and experiences.
the assumptions and lack of understanding of the reality of
men’s lived disaster experiences (e.g. Rushton et al., 2020).
What Fordham and Meyreles (2014) called a paradox, mas- Review statement. This paper was edited by Paolo Tarolli and re-
culinity, which contributes to the structure of power that priv- viewed by two anonymous referees.
ileges men, can also put men at risk (e.g. Jonkman and Kel-
man, 2005; Ashley and Ashley, 2008; Fitzgerald et al., 2010).
Similarly, we can observe how in the professional domain,
specific jobs and disciplines are still perceived as belonging
to a (stereotyped) female world only and where men are seen
as outliers. If the final goal is a truly inclusive society, we
must be aware of all the biases and stereotypes we are sur-
rounded by and counteract all of them appropriately. The fu-
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022V. Cigala et al.: Invited perspectives: “Natural hazard and gender equity” 95
References by: Enarson, E. and Dhar Chakrabarti, P. G., Sage, 1–23,
ISBN 13: 9788132101482, 2009.
Fatouros, S. and Capetola, T.: Examining Gendered Ex-
Adams, A. S., Steiner, A. L., and Wiedinmyer, C.: The earth science pectations on Women’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards
women’s network (ESWN): Community-driven mentoring for in Low to Middle Income Countries: A critical Litera-
women in the atmospheric sciences, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97, ture Review, Int. J. Disast. Risk Reduct., 64, 102495,
345–354, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00040.1, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102495, 2021.
Aitsi-Selmi, A., Blanchard, K., and Murray, V.: Ensuring sci- Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., and
ence is useful, usable and used in global disaster risk Satterfield, T. A.: Gender, race, and perceived risk: The
reduction and sustainable development: A view through “white male” effect, Health. Risk Soc., 2, 159–172,
the Sendai framework lens, Palgrave Commun., 2, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1080/713670162, 2000.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.16, 2016. Fitzgerald, G., Du, W., Jamal, A., Clark, M., and Hou, X. Y.:
Alagan, R. and Aladuwaka, S.: Natural disaster, gender, and chal- Flood fatalities in contemporary Australia (1997–2008): Disas-
lenges: Lessons from Asian tsunami, Res. Polit. Sociol., 19, 121– ter medicine, EMA – Emergency Medicine Australasia, 22, 180–
132, https://doi.org/10.1108/S0895-9935(2011)0000019012, 186, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-6723.2010.01284.x, 2010.
2011. Fordham, M. and Meyreles, L.: Gender aspects of disaster manage-
Alon, T., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., and Tertilt, M.: The ment, in: Disaster Management: International Lessons in Risk
Impact of COVID-19 on Gender Equality, NBER Working Paper Reduction, Response and Recovery, edited by: Lopez-Carresi,
No. 26947, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, A., Fordham, M., Wisner, B., Kelman, I., and Gaillard, C., Rout-
MA, available at: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_ ledge, 23–40, ISBN 978-1849713474, 2014.
papers/w26947/w26947.pdf (last access: 14 January 2022), Gaillard, J. C., Gorman-Murray, A., and Fordham, M.: Sexual and
2020. gender minorities in disaster, Gender Place Cult., 24, 18–26,
Araujo, J. F. F. E. and Tejedo-Romero, F.: Women’s political repre- https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1263438, 2017.
sentation and transparency in local governance, Local Gov. Stud., Gonzales, L.: Participation of Women in the Geoscience,
42, 885–906, https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2016.1194266, AGI Data Br. 2019-015(November), 1–2, available at:
2016. https://www.americangeosciences.org/geoscience-currents/
Ashley, S. T. and Ashley, W. S.: Flood fatalities in the participation-women-geoscience-profession (last access:
United States, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 47, 805–818, 14 January 2022), 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAMC1611.1, 2008. Gorman-Murray, A., McKinnon, S., Dominey-Howes, D., Nash,
Bell, R. E., Kastens, K. A., Cane, M., Muller, R. B., Mutter, C. J., and Bolton, R.: Listening and learning: giving voice to
J. C., and Pfirman, S.: Righting the balance: Gender diversity trans experiences of disasters, Gender Place Cult., 25, 166–187,
in the geosciences, Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 84, 292, https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1334632, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2003EO310005, 2003. Gurmai, Z.: Women’s role in good governance Workshop
Chandler, R., Guillaume, D., Parker, A. G., Mack, A., Hamil- of the CEE Network for Gender Issues, 14–15, available
ton, J., Dorsey, J., and Hernandez, N. D.: The impact at: https://www.europeanforum.net/uploads/2013_cee_booklet_
of COVID-19 among Black women: evaluating perspec- en_a5_v4.pdf (last access: 14 January 2022), 2013.
tives and sources of information, Ethn. Health, 26, 80–93, Handley, H. K., Hillman, J., Finch, M., Ubide, T., Kachovich, S.,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2020.1841120, 2021. McLaren, S., Petts, A., Purandare, J., Foote, A., and Tiddy, C.:
Cvetković, V. M., Roder, G., Öcal, A., Tarolli, P., and Dragićević, In Australasia, gender is still on the agenda in geosciences,
S.: The role of gender in preparedness and response behaviors Adv. Geosci., 53, 205–226, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-53-
towards flood risk in Serbia, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health, 205-2020, 2020.
15, 2761, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122761, 2018. Hemachandra, K., Amaratunga, D., and Haigh, R.: Role of women
Datta, R.: Decolonizing both researcher and research and its in disaster risk governance, Procedia Eng., 212, 1187–1194,
effectiveness in Indigenous research, Res. Ethics, 14, 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.153, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117733296, 2018. Jonkman, S. N. and Kelman, I.: An analysis of the causes and
De Silva, K and Jayathilaka, R.: Gender in the context of Dis- circumstances of flood disaster deaths, Disasters, 29, 75–97,
aster Risk Reduction; A Case Study of a Flood Risk Re- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0361-3666.2005.00275.x, 2005.
duction Project in the Gampaha District in Sri Lanka, Proce- Kenney, L., McGee, P., and Bhatnagar, K.: Different,
dia Econ. Financ., 18, 873–881, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212- not deficient: The Challenges Women Face in STEM
5671(14)01013-2, 2014. Fields, J. Technol. Manage. Appl. Eng., 28, available at:
Diekman, A. B., Weisgram, E. S., and Belanger, A. L.: New Routes https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.atmae.org/resource/resmgr/
to Recruiting and Retaining Women in STEM: Policy Implica- Articles/Kenney-Challenges-Women-STEM.pdf (last access:
tions of a Communal Goal Congruity Perspective, Soc. Issue. 14 January 2022), 2012.
Policy Rev., 9, 52–88, https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12010, 2015. Latour, B.: Politics of Nature: How to bring the science into democ-
Dominey-Howes, D., Gorman-Murray, A., and McKinnon, S.: racy, edited by: Porter, C., Harvard University Press, London,
Queering disasters: on the need to account for LGBTI experi- UK, ISBN 9780674013476, 2004.
ences in natural disaster contexts, Gender Place Cult., 21, 905– McKay, K., Wark, S., Mapedzahama, V., Dune, T., Rahman, S.,
918, https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2013.802673, 2014. and MacPhail, C.: Sticks and stones: How words and lan-
Enarson, E. and Chakrabarti, P. G. D.: Published version in Women,
in: Gender and Disaster: Global Issues and Initiatives, edited
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-85-2022 Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 85–96, 2022You can also read
